[Khalak]

(Original post by Tolth)
Because we're human beings and we care about other people.

Yes whilst i am making end meets, sorry but I am not god, and I do not have time nor do i 'care' for repeat druggies, who are timewasting resource sucking scum, if that seems harsh, well thats because it is, we are in harsh times and I have no time for druggie supporting idiots like you, you can volunteer to pay extra tax to treat druggies if you want, I will not stand in your way.

[TurboCretin]

The question should really be: "why and why not should we be allowed to take drugs?"

To which I'd answer: depends on the drug. Current drug laws are obviously nothing to do with the inherent dangers associated with particular drugs. Look at LSD: neither physically, psychologically nor situationally addictive. Not harmful in any sense, though it may be abused, as anything can. Class A.

Others, such as heroin, are rightly illegal in my view. They are simply harmful and destructive.

[Steve1654]

I think people should do them to find out how underrated some of them actually are!

[Jono404]

If it wasn't for the fact alcohol made meeting people to **** easier it would have been made class A a long time ago.

[mohsanrabbani]

(Original post by Steevee)
Depends on the person, in my opinion.

And what about drugs such as LSD, which are Class A but in no way addictive.

Drug legislation needs to be based on harm to the user, not some archaic 'moral' hangover. So whilst perhaps Heroin and Crack should not be legal due to their addictive nature, there should certainly be a discussion on the legality of drugs that are not addictive, or only nominally addictive. If I want to take MDMA, LSD, Cannabis or DMT, why should I not be able to?

I understand what your saying, but what if to say drugs were legal how do we monitor there distribution in an adequate level?

In my opinion many people well try and resolve there problems/worries using drugs and gain falsehood that there in a happy position but in reality there stuck in a spiral of problems and are turning to the easy option of forgetting there worries.

This is just my opnion in why most drugs should stay band despite there initial effects.

[DudeRugs]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Without even going into the practical positives of ending prohibition (destroying the black market, purity etc.) it's intrinsically wrong on moral grounds. John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle' (from 1859; over 150 years ago) posits "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." To others. Not "to his/herself". Those who favour prohibition, in one sweep, manage to violate freedom of choice, the non-aggression principle, and the principle of self-ownership. I personally "would sooner let a leper come near a small boy than a man who preached such a thing". Add to this the fact that, according to the great Milton Friedman, prohibition results in 10,000 additional homicides a year, and there's absolutely no moral justification for it.

QFT!

[Tolth]

(Original post by Khalak)
Yes whilst i am making end meets, sorry but I am not god, and I do not have time nor do i 'care' for repeat druggies, who are timewasting resource sucking scum, if that seems harsh, well thats because it is, we are in harsh times and I have no time for druggie supporting idiots like you, you can volunteer to pay extra tax to treat druggies if you want, I will not stand in your way.

You can justify it as much as you like, but you just ain't a particularly nice person are ya? It's always fun to see quite how little pushing it takes for your kind to start screaming about 'scum' and for the little veil of faux-rationalism to perish.

[Tolth]

(Original post by mohsanrabbani)
I understand what your saying, but what if to say drugs were legal how do we monitor there distribution in an adequate level?

Er, using the same sort of mechanisms by which we control the distribution of alcohol?

[Khalak]

(Original post by Tolth)
You can justify it as much as you like, but you just ain't a particularly nice person are ya? It's always fun to see quite how little pushing it takes for your kind to start screaming about 'scum' and for the little veil of faux-rationalism to perish.

Repeat druggies give society nothing and stretch NHS resources, I suppose these druggies are nice people according to your logic.

In a time where everyone is having to make ends meet, sorry I choose a non druggie like me over repeat druggies, if that makes me a bad person, so be it, I think I will manage to live with myself.

If a person cannot come off drugs and REPEATEDLY carries on taking drugs, then tI could not care less about such people.

[Tolth]

(Original post by Khalak)
Repeat druggies give society nothing and stretch NHS resources, I suppose these druggies are nice people according to your logic.

In a time where everyone is having to make ends meet, sorry I choose a non druggie like me over repeat druggies, if that makes me a bad person, so be it, I think I will manage to live with myself.

If a person cannot come off drugs and REPEATEDLY carries on taking drugs, then tI could not care less about such people.

They're human beings. They don't have to be nice, successful, contributory or useful to be worthy of basic compassion.

[Steevee]

(Original post by mohsanrabbani)
I understand what your saying, but what if to say drugs were legal how do we monitor there distribution in an adequate level?

In my opinion many people well try and resolve there problems/worries using drugs and gain falsehood that there in a happy position but in reality there stuck in a spiral of problems and are turning to the easy option of forgetting there worries.

This is just my opnion in why most drugs should stay band despite there initial effects.

The same way you do with legal drugs

And you have no right at all to make that decision for everyone. If escapism is such a worry for you then you must want to ban fiction books, alcohol, Soap television and films aswell?

[Khalak]

(Original post by Tolth)
They're human beings. They don't have to be nice, successful, contributory or useful to be worthy of basic compassion.

In case you hasnt noticed we are in difficult times, and I think it is about time the taxman showed me some compassion. Maybe if such druggies didn't exist or were allowed to die rather than put a strain on the NHS resources, then the taxman might show me some compassion for once.

I think I am more worthy of some compassion than a repeat druggie.

[Tolth]

(Original post by Khalak)
In case you hasnt noticed we are in difficult times, and I think it is about time the taxman showed me some compassion. Maybe if such druggies didn't exist or were allowed to die rather than put a strain on the NHS resources, then the taxman might show me some compassion for once.

I think I am more worthy of some compassion than a repeat druggie.

Your logic is, quite literally 'If more people were dead, the government will let me have more money to spend on myself'. Sit down for a moment. Think, to yourself - "Is this the type of human being I want to be?"

[Khalak]

(Original post by Tolth)
Your logic is, quite literally 'If more people were dead, the government will let me have more money to spend on myself'. Sit down for a moment. Think, to yourself - "Is this the type of human being I want to be?"

No you are being a drama queen now, my logic is if REPEAT DRUGGIES who waste resources in times of economic difficulty when people like me are just yes just about keeping afloat, then the taxman might show me some 'compassion'.

[hughh20]

(Original post by Khalak)
In case you hasnt noticed we are in difficult times, and I think it is about time the taxman showed me some compassion. Maybe if such druggies didn't exist or were allowed to die rather than put a strain on the NHS resources, then the taxman might show me some compassion for once.

I think I am more worthy of some compassion than a repeat druggie.

Your use of druggie to describe all drug users, recreational or addicted, makes me realise you're an idiot.

Heroin, crack, meth and opiates are the only drugs that should be very tightly regulated and treatment given to addicts in my opinion. We're losing out on so much by not having a balanced view on the benefits and risks of MDMA, LSD and cannabis. Prohibition causes far more harm than good.

[Khalak]

(Original post by hughh20)
Your use of druggie to describe all drug users, recreational or addicted, makes me realise you're an idiot.

Heroin, crack, meth and opiates are the only drugs that should be very tightly regulated and treatment given to addicts in my opinion. We're losing out on so much by not having a balanced view on the benefits and risks of MDMA, LSD and cannabis. Prohibition causes far more harm than good.

You see I do not care what repeat drug users do, as long as they do not expect hard working people like me to pay tax to treat them. If those drugs are so beneficial than repeat druggies on them drugs should not receive any resources from the NHS.

[Chillywilly93]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
I remember hearing a great quote from Bill Maher -

"The Beatles took LSD and wrote Sgt. Pepper. Anna Nicole Smith took prescription drugs and couldn't dial 911"

haha excellent

[DudeRugs]

(Original post by Khalak)
No you are being a drama queen now, my logic is if REPEAT DRUGGIES who waste resources in times of economic difficulty when people like me are just yes just about keeping afloat, then the taxman might show me some 'compassion'.

More resources are being wasted in keeping drugs illegal though.

[megan.c]

(Original post by Khalak)
You see I do not care what repeat drug users do, as long as they do not expect hard working people like me to pay tax to treat them. If those drugs are so beneficial than repeat druggies on them drugs should not receive any resources from the NHS.

I could be wrong, but you don't get any help from the NHS for things like MDMA and weed (unless you end up ODing or over-hydrating on MD because of bad education). People don't tend to get addicted to these drugs so much as they'll eventually feel less of a high and then go onto harder stuff which become addictive.

Surely it's therefore better to de-criminalise those drugs as you'd be able to create more education based initiatives to warn people not to get too far in.
(also, at the moment they'd already be in contact with an MD dealer who would know dealers in other drugs, before going onto harder stuff - if it was legal and actually sold then not necessarily the case)

[Chillywilly93]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
Why we shouldn't? Health risks mainly, not to mention they're expensive and make you act like a moron.

my definition of a moron is somebody who lives life hiding from the potential experiences that await them